Rick H Hoyle, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller, Jolynn Pek
{"title":"用偏分法来完善心理结构测量的分数和推论的做法值得商榷。","authors":"Rick H Hoyle, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller, Jolynn Pek","doi":"10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Partialing is a statistical approach researchers use with the goal of removing extraneous variance from a variable before examining its association with other variables. Controlling for confounds through analysis of covariance or multiple regression analysis and residualizing variables for use in subsequent analyses are common approaches to partialing in clinical research. Despite its intuitive appeal, partialing is fraught with undesirable consequences when predictors are correlated. After describing effects of partialing on variables, we review analytic approaches commonly used in clinical research to make inferences about the nature and effects of partialed variables. We then use two simulations to show how partialing can distort variables and their relations with other variables. Having concluded that, with rare exception, partialing is ill-advised, we offer recommendations for reducing or eliminating problematic uses of partialing. We conclude that the best alternative to partialing is to define and measure constructs so that it is not needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50755,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology","volume":"19 ","pages":"155-176"},"PeriodicalIF":17.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Questionable Practice of Partialing to Refine Scores on and Inferences About Measures of Psychological Constructs.\",\"authors\":\"Rick H Hoyle, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller, Jolynn Pek\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Partialing is a statistical approach researchers use with the goal of removing extraneous variance from a variable before examining its association with other variables. Controlling for confounds through analysis of covariance or multiple regression analysis and residualizing variables for use in subsequent analyses are common approaches to partialing in clinical research. Despite its intuitive appeal, partialing is fraught with undesirable consequences when predictors are correlated. After describing effects of partialing on variables, we review analytic approaches commonly used in clinical research to make inferences about the nature and effects of partialed variables. We then use two simulations to show how partialing can distort variables and their relations with other variables. Having concluded that, with rare exception, partialing is ill-advised, we offer recommendations for reducing or eliminating problematic uses of partialing. We conclude that the best alternative to partialing is to define and measure constructs so that it is not needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"155-176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331532/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Questionable Practice of Partialing to Refine Scores on and Inferences About Measures of Psychological Constructs.
Partialing is a statistical approach researchers use with the goal of removing extraneous variance from a variable before examining its association with other variables. Controlling for confounds through analysis of covariance or multiple regression analysis and residualizing variables for use in subsequent analyses are common approaches to partialing in clinical research. Despite its intuitive appeal, partialing is fraught with undesirable consequences when predictors are correlated. After describing effects of partialing on variables, we review analytic approaches commonly used in clinical research to make inferences about the nature and effects of partialed variables. We then use two simulations to show how partialing can distort variables and their relations with other variables. Having concluded that, with rare exception, partialing is ill-advised, we offer recommendations for reducing or eliminating problematic uses of partialing. We conclude that the best alternative to partialing is to define and measure constructs so that it is not needed.
期刊介绍:
The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is a publication that has been available since 2005. It offers comprehensive reviews on significant developments in the field of clinical psychology and psychiatry. The journal covers various aspects including research, theory, and the application of psychological principles to address recognized disorders such as schizophrenia, mood, anxiety, childhood, substance use, cognitive, and personality disorders. Additionally, the articles also touch upon broader issues that cut across the field, such as diagnosis, treatment, social policy, and cross-cultural and legal issues.
Recently, the current volume of this journal has transitioned from a gated access model to an open access format through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. All articles published in this volume are now available under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), allowing for widespread distribution and use. The journal is also abstracted and indexed in various databases including Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search, among others.